Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: Suwarrow National Park is an Important Bird Area and a breeding site for migratory bird species. It also an important area for globally threatened marine migratory species including whales, sharks, turtles and rays.
Evidence B:According to the CI database, the National Park of Suwarrow is a key biodiversity area, ranked at High Significance, not only for the purpose of bird conservation but also protection and preservation of ecosystems in oceans and sea.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: As an ocean dominated country the Cook Islands contributes to climate mitigation. This however may be endangered by deep sea mining in the future.
Evidence B:No data is available to estimate the importance of the area for climate mitigation neither in the CI database nor the EoI.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: The population of the Cook Islands as a whole is Indigenous and no conservation initiative led by the government or NGOs occurs without consultation with and approval by traditional leaders. Te Ipukarea Society is managed by Indigenous peoples. Suwarrow is not inhabited.
Evidence B:Even though the EoI recognises the importance of IPCLs engagement and provides a few references in this regard, it does not present an IPLCs activate role or concrete information regarding IPLC governance systems.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: There is no specific description about Cook Islanders’ cultural or historical relationship with Suwarrow. The proposal emphasizes only the customary approach to conservation through ra’ui which continues to be practiced today.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: Ongoing threats to the island include invasive species; fishing gear, including FADs that wash up on Suwarrow and impact surrounding ocean area; impacts of climate change and potential deep sea mining.
Evidence B:These threats include: Mainly tourism impacts, habitat loss and deterioration, land conversion and unsustainable land use, unsustainable harvesting of wild resources, fire, climate change (sea and ambient temperatures).
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: This proposal supports ongoing conservation efforts by the Government and communities of the Cook Islands such as the Marae Moana in which traditional leaders in Cook Islands are actively involved. It will also support the role of Indigenous rangers who monitor the island.
Evidence B:According to the CI database (Landmark), “The Crown formally recognizes and protects rights of traditional landowners through legislation. The Cook Islands Act prohibits alienation of customary land, whether to Cook Islanders or others.” Beyond a prohibition on alienation, the dimensions of those rights are not clear, and there is not further information referred to in the EOI.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: Conservation in the Cook Islands requires collaboration between the national government and traditional leadership. The Marae Moana Marine Park establishment cemented the collaboration between national government, island councils (which include traditional authorities) and the House of Ariki which brings together the traditional chiefs of all of the Cook Islands.
Evidence B:The CI database provides relevant information which exemplifies the support provided by national and sub-national governments for IPLC-led conservation in the country. On the other hand, the EoI presents broad information about government intervention and active support for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed area.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: The Marae Moana Marine Park establishment in 2017 was the culmination of ongoing work in conservation by Cook Islanders for Cook Islanders.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: The proposal lists a number of projects which can dovetail with and support this initiative.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: TIS is led by Indigenous peoples and this project will support improved Cook Islands’ management of Suwarrow National Park.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: The proposal has clear objectives and anticipated results but it should indicate more clearly how the project can contribute to educational and cultural outcomes.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: The ambitions are realistic but it is not altogether clear what type of ecotourism can/should be developed and how this will contribute to fostering cultural values and educational opportunities.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: Based on the Marae Moana park establishment, the investment seems realistic and feasible.
Evidence B:There is not enough development of the set of project activities and well-defined range of investment. The activities/objectives are vaguely described.
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: It proposes in-kind contributions only.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: Considering the marine area protection which is above 1,000,000 hectares, and the numbers of beneficiaries, the benefits can be considered very high.
Evidence B:No data available, neither in the CI database nor the EoI, to estimate (GEF core indicators) substantially and realistic.
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: These are not articulated. The proposal just makes references to ecotourism.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: The project fits in well with Marae Moana marine park and other ongoing initiatives but the proposal could be more explicit.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: The project is clearly related to NBSAPs but the proposal doesn’t mention NDCs and doesn’t provide sufficient details.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: The EOI does not give much emphasis to gender mainstreaming.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: Establishment of a biosphere will be beneficial to the Cook Islands and help reinforce conservation efforts but the EOI doesn’t emphasise specifically or in detail how this will benefit the people of Cook Islands as a whole and result in transformation beyond Suwarrow itself.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: TIS is an Indigenous organization.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: TIS has been a leading conservation organization and has the demonstrated ability to carry out the work.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: this section of the proposal is incomplete which is strange as clearly TIS has worked with other IPLCs.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: TIS has prior GEF project experience through small grants.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: It meets 2 out of 3 criteria and close to 3 as it has one project worth 200,000USD.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: Answer proves explanation.
Evidence B:NA